From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:37:46 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Make FIT support really optional In-Reply-To: <345857401.1244821.1465061962032.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br> References: <1462719960-12229-1-git-send-email-casantos@datacom.ind.br> <1464981386-26342-1-git-send-email-casantos@datacom.ind.br> <20160604130658.GC11619@bill-the-cat> <345857401.1244821.1465061962032.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br> Message-ID: <20160607223746.09c998f6@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Carlos, Tom, On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:39:22 -0300 (BRT), Carlos Santos wrote: > > So, why? I don't like the idea of making FIT support in mkimage > > conditional. > > If FIT is not to be conditional then what's the purpose of the > CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE configuration option? Looks like it exists > exactly to make FIT support conditional, which seems to be a > reasonable approach, since it helps to reduce the size of the boot > loader. CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE is I guess optional because it requires OpenSSL at *build* time and the U-Boot developers don't want to force everyone to have OpenSSL available to build U-Boot. However, FIT support does not require any special build dependency, so probably there's little interest from the U-Boot folks to make it optional. > > This makes the life of distribution people harder, not > > easier. The functions in common/bootm.c should be being discarded > > in U-Boot itself when we don't have CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE. Thanks! > > The patch exists because of "distribution people". I sent a patch to > Buildroot[1] which was refused because it added dependencies on DTC > and evolved to several follow-ups [2,3,4]. Right, *but* it is not because we make FIT support optional in Buildroot that we have to make it optional in U-Boot. We can perfectly have an option in Buildroot to enable/disable FIT support which does *not* enable/disable FIT support in the U-Boot, but only ensures that the relevant runtime dependencies (i.e DTC) are enabled. Of course, if the U-Boot developers want to make FIT support in the bootloader itself an optional feature, why not, but it's clearly not a requirement from our side. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com